RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VII, Issue 2046, 25 November 1869, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before J. Fulton, Esq., R.M.) DRUNKARDS. Thomas Brown and William Paxton were each fined 10s. or to be imprisoned 24 hours, for being drunk. PETTY OFFENCES. The following fines were imposed for the offences stated ;—James Simpson, two cows wandering in the streets, 2s fid each ; John i onk, three cows wandering, 2s 6d each; and Con elius Bunbury, four cows wandering, 3s each. SLY-GROG SELLING. William O’Neill was charged on the information of the police, with permitting to be sold in his store, in Great King street, a qua tity of fermented liquor, “called beer,” not being duly licensed to do so, on the 21st November.

The Commissioner of Police • inducted the prosecution, and Mr Stewart appeared for the defence. W. Colburn on being placed in the box said be knew William O’Neill’s store, and bought there on Sunday night a bottle of porter, sixpennyworth of beer, and a glass of brandy. He paid for them. In crossexamination by Mr Stewart, the witn-ss said he recdlec c l asking to buy two bottles of porter some t me ago, which O’Neill refused to let Kim have because he owed two shillings and twopence. He never said on being refu ed ho “would do for him yet.” He pud the m ney to Mrs O’Neill, ti whom he gave Is Od f 'r the porter, and afterwards paid 6d for the brandy. (The other witnesses were ordered out of court, as Mr Stewart intimated further proceedings might betaken). He saw Mrs O’Neill, and said he wanted a bottle of porter. He had a jug in his hand, and said he wanted six pennyworth of beer. The detective did not come to him until he was outside the house. There was nothing between Mrs O’Neill and him, except that he asked for a bottle of porter for which he paid a shilling. He asked for sixpennyworth of beer for which he prid with the porter two shillings and received sixpence back. Then he asked for a glass of brandy and Mrs O’Neill said she would take no money for it. He paid her sixpence after ho got the glass of brandy out of the bottle. She took no money for the brandy he drank in the house. She made him a present of the brandv ho drank in the house, and he paid for the brandy he took away in the bottle. He saw a man when he left the house, who proved to be a policeman He was told that some one was to be about outside to take the beer ; he went in on purp-se. He did not hand him the hee he “ conic” and took it. He was told by another publican that it would be done. It was Mr M gee, of the Coach and Horses. Mr who bullied the witness mo t unmerciful'y, and tried t<> frighten him with threats, put some questions with a view t > eliciting the conversation that took place between the witness and the police. The Commies oner of Police objected, on the ground that communications to the police were privileged, Mr Stewart said he conn 'ered it only fair that what he termed such an iniquitous conspiracy should be laid bare. Ilia Worship could not agree with Mr Stewart’s re ding of the law, and could not sanction such questions being put. Cross-examination continued : —He went and asked for a bottle of porter and some b er, and offered to pay for it Mrs O’Neill said she would not give it to a party who was with him, as she did not Know him. [The witness here fainted, and would ha e fallen had he not been caught by the officers of the Court.]—On recovering, he said he was acquainted with the person, but did not know his name. He had been in he habit of meeting him for the last six months. His Christian name was John ; he did not know his surname. Mrs O’Neill said she would not 'ike to give drink to the other man, as she did not know him. He did not reco lect saying when Mrs O’Neill said she would not take pay, that any man who would come into the house for the purpose of injuring her deserved to have his head knocked off. The wit mss was obliged to retire, and— Constable Hanlan was called and examined. He said, about 9.30 on Sunday evening, 21st October, he was op duty in plain clothes near the defendant’s store in Great King stre t. He saw Colburn go into O’Neill’s store, and waited until he came out. ’ He had a jug in his hand rolled up partially in brown paper. He stopped him and examined the contents, which seemed to be about three half pints of beer ;he had also a bottle of porter. From what Colburn told him he summoned him as a witness, and summoned the defradant On going into his store he saw two barrels of Cob mi d beer on tap. The defendant said he Jjottled his own beer. Cross-examined by Mr Stewart: He knew Colburn, who is a cab driver. He knew Magee, and had two conversations with him. The Coromisgionor of Police objected to the conversations "being related in evidence, as they were privileged. Mr Stewart considered that the plea of privilege ought nob to be entertained in cases like the [resent where the reputation of the defendant was at stake. Cross-examination continued :—He knew that Colburn was to go to the store that evening. In the ordinary course of his duty he might or might not have been near the store. He believed he was standing there through the knowledge that Colburn would be there that evening. On Colburn returning to Court, the crossexamination was renewed The person he saw on leaving the store was a policeman He also saw John and Magee coming up. He asked Mrs O’Neill for some brandy, as a man named Nieholl was unwell. This closed the case for the prosecution. Mr Stewart, having addressed the Court, proceed* d to call Mrs O’Neill, but her evidence was not allowed to he taken. The defendant, O’Neill, was a'lowed to make a statement, which was to the following effect: —He bad a suspicion that Magee was laying traps to catch him, and as thn witness Colburn had been refused credit some time ag , when he came for drink on Sunday night he told Mrs O’Neill to take no money from him. He could hear the conversation as he lay in bed in the room adjoining the store. Colburn seemed very anxious that Mrs O’Neill should rec ire p iy for the drink but she said “ never mind now.” When he left the store he seemed v. ry particular to have every thing made up, and asked her to go outside to see whether anybody was there. Hanlan and Magee were standing about twenty yards from the door. Hanlan shortly after went into the place, and a»ked if they had any beer on the premises as there was a complaint laid against them. His Worship said he had no doubt in his own mind that the offence charged had been committed. It was admitted that there was . an arrangement to catch the defendant, and as far as he knew, off ndera of that description never were caught in any other way. Mr Stewart : Your Worship sanctions these proceedings. His Worship : 1 do not say I sanction them. I express no opinion respecting them I do not think anything of the’exception taken by Mr Stewart with reeard to the word “beer.” I hold that the offence is proved. The defendant was fined L2O. Mr Stewart asked if the evidence was taken down. His Worship said he had merely made notes for his own satisfaction. That had Mr Stewart applied it should have been recorded, but he had no doubt the daily papers would give fair reports of the case. Mr Stewart did not consider their reports reliable, and his object was with a view to ulterior proceedings.

INFORMATIONS BY THE INSPECTOR OF NUISANCES. George Caroline, and Mrs Davis, having abated the nuisances charged against them, the cases were dismissed. H. P. Morse, for neglecting to keep premises cle >n, was fined 10s. David Hutchison was charged with plying for hire with two unlicensed drays. Mr Stewart, for the defence, stated that, the defendant had four licensed drays, but that the two unlicensed, ones were, employed in deliverhii material contracted for, which he obtained at Anderson’s Bay. He contended that, under such circumstances, the drays could not be considered as being “plied for hire,” any more than that of a farmer delivering bis own produce. His Worship thought at any rate the point was one for consideration. A witness named Turner said he kept the two drays in question wholly employed in delivering sand and stone, under contracts. His Worship said he would reserve his decision for consideration. Edward M‘Ewan, driving an ‘unlicensed dray, haring since taken out a license, was dismissed.—Michael Fleming, for throwing straw on Princes street. The nuisance, it appeared, was caused by having to deposit straw on the footpath, in order to its being received into the store. The defendant was dismissed with a caution.